True Diversity Should Prioritize Class Over Race

Throughout my career as a center-left thinker and writer, I have collaborated with individuals such as former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to foster school integration, as well as with Keith Ellison and the late John Lewis to reinforce organized labor. So, what motivated me to join the conservative group, Students for Fair Admissions, in its lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina that contributed to the Supreme Court’s termination of racial preferences in 2023?

In my new book, Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges, I present my testimony as an expert witness stating that while racial and economic diversity is beneficial for students, there exists a more effective method to achieve these aims than relying on racial preferences.

In my testimony, I urged universities to reconsider preferences for affluent students and instead offer admissions advantages to economically disadvantaged individuals of all races, a considerable portion of whom would ultimately be Black and Hispanic.

I had long maintained that this method could be effective, but my conviction deepened after examining internal documents at Harvard and UNC to understand their admission processes.

Harvard and UNC argued that their ability to create racially diverse campuses depended solely on racial preferences, but the admissions data revealed that class and alumni status were the primary factors at play.

At Harvard, for example, its emphasis on race over class resulted in a demographic where nearly 75% of Black and Hispanic students came from the top 20% of wealthiest Black and Hispanic families nationally. This outcome starkly contradicts the claims made by advocates of racial preference programs.

While Harvard professed a commitment to racial justice, it was revealed that the institution systematically rated Asian American students lower on subjective measures meant to assess traits like “integrity,” “courage,” and “empathy.”

Predictions from Harvard and higher education experts suggested that a ban on racial preferences would be “catastrophic” for racial diversity, with Harvard estimating that the percentage of Black students would plummet from 14% to just 6%. An amicus brief from certain liberal arts colleges ominously predicted a drop to 2.1 percent.

However, those projections were incorrect. While some institutions did experience significant drops in racial diversity, many demonstrated that maintaining diversity was possible in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. At Harvard, the Black student share did not decline to 6% or even 2%. Instead, the number reported was 14%, showing only a slight decrease compared to the previous year, while the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 14% to 16%.

Some academics speculated that there would be a significant backlash following a Supreme Court ruling against racial preferences, similar to the public’s reaction to the overruling of Roe v. Wade.

When I addressed students on college campuses, nearly everyone seemed to favor racial preferences. Middlebury students expressed that raising concerns about affirmative action policies would lead to “social death.” However, when the Supreme Court ruled against racial preferences, a significant majority of Americans supported the decision. The reality was that my fellow Democrats were misaligned with public sentiment.

Due to the success of several universities in retaining racial diversity when they had anticipated a significant drop, some conservatives questioned whether these institutions were employing deceptive practices. The admissions processes of universities are notoriously opaque, making it challenging to ascertain the truth.

It’s plausible that some universities might be violating the law by using student essays related to race to covertly apply racial preferences in ways the Supreme Court did not intend.

Nonetheless, there is evidence suggesting that numerous universities have adopted an approach focused on economic need-based affirmative action, which could help clarify the high racial diversity metrics. Shortly after Students for Fair Admission initiated the lawsuit against Harvard, only 7% of its incoming class comprised first-generation college students; by 2024, this figure surged to 21%.

The University of Virginia implemented new financial aid programs and forged partnerships with high schools, resulting in an increase of students eligible for federal Pell Grants from 14% five years earlier to 24%.

At Duke, the percentage of Pell Grant students doubled within two years, rising from 11% to 22%. Dartmouth reported achieving record-high levels of first-generation college students, with Pell Grant recipients increasing by five percentage points in just one year, reaching an unprecedented peak.

Initiatives aimed at addressing economic disparities tend to garner far more public support compared to racial preferences. Yet, in a recent “Dear Colleague” letter, the Office for Civil Rights of the Trump Administration’s Department of Education stated that it would penalize race-neutral programs if they aimed to “enhance racial diversity.” This is a stance the U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld — and one that does not reflect the views of the public.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is the Director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute and the author of Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges (PublicAffairs/Hachette).